Search results
- At its peak the Holy Roman Empire encompassed the territories of present-day Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Austria, Slovenia, Belgium, and the Netherlands as well as large parts of modern Poland, France and Italy.
www.newworldencyclopedia.org › entry › Holy_Roman_Empire
People also ask
What was the Holy Roman Empire?
What countries were part of the Holy Roman Empire?
Why was there a Holy Roman Empire in Western Europe?
Who ruled the Holy Roman Empire?
The Holy Roman Empire, also known as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation after 1512, was a polity in Central and Western Europe, usually headed by the Holy Roman Emperor. It developed in the Early Middle Ages and lasted for almost 1,000 years until its dissolution in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars .
- Overview
- Nature of the empire
Though the term “Holy Roman Empire” was not used until much later, the empire traces its beginnings to Charlemagne, who took control of the Frankish dominion in 768. The papacy’s close ties to the Franks and its growing estrangement from the Eastern Roman Empire led to Pope Leo III’s crowning of Charlemagne as “emperor of the Romans” in 800.
Where was the Holy Roman Empire located?
The Holy Roman Empire was located in western and central Europe and included parts of what is now France, Germany, and Italy. Its boundaries changed over time.
What was the Holy Roman Empire known for?
The Holy Roman Empire ruled over much of western and central Europe from the 9th century to the 19th century. It envisioned itself as a dominion for Christendom continuing in the tradition of the ancient Roman Empire and was characterized by strong papal authority.
Why did the Holy Roman Empire fall?
The precise term Sacrum Romanum Imperium dates only from 1254, though the term Holy Empire reaches back to 1157, and the term Roman Empire was used from 1034 to denote the lands under Conrad II’s rule. The term “Roman emperor” is older, dating from Otto II (died 983). This title, however, was not used by Otto II’s predecessors, from Charlemagne (or Charles I) to Otto I, who simply employed the phrase imperator augustus (“august emperor”) without any territorial adjunct. The first title that Charlemagne is known to have used, immediately after his coronation in 800, is “Charles, most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman empire.” This clumsy formula, however, was soon discarded.
These questions about terms reveal some of the problems involved in the nature and early history of the empire. It can be regarded as a political institution, or approached from the point of view of political theory, or treated in the context of the history of Christendom as the secular counterpart of a world religion. The history of the empire is also not to be confused or identified with the history of its constituent kingdoms, Germany and Italy, though clearly they are interrelated. The constituent territories retained their identity; the emperors, in addition to the imperial crown, also wore the crowns of their kingdoms. Finally, whereas none of the earlier emperors from Otto I had assumed the imperial title until actually crowned by the pope in Rome, after Charles V none was emperor in this sense, though all laid claim to the imperial dignity as if they had been duly crowned as well as elected. Despite these anomalies and others, the empire, at least in the Middle Ages, was by common assent, along with the papacy, the most important institution of western Europe.
Britannica Quiz
Emperors and Empresses from Around the (Non-Roman) World Quiz
Theologians, lawyers, popes, ecclesiastics, rulers, rebels like Arnold of Brescia and Cola di Rienzo, literary figures like Dante and Petrarch, and the practical men, members of the high nobility, on whom the emperors relied for support, all saw the empire in a different light and had their own ideas of its origin, function, and justification. Among these heterogeneous and often incompatible views, three may be said to predominate: (1) the papal theory, according to which the empire was the secular arm of the church, set up by the papacy for its own purposes and therefore answerable to the pope and, in the last resort, to be disposed of by him; (2) the imperial, or Frankish, theory, which placed greater emphasis on conquest and hegemony as the source of the emperor’s power and authority and according to which he was responsible directly to God; and (3) the popular, or Roman, theory (the “people” at this stage being synonymous with the nobility and in this instance with the Roman nobility), according to which the empire, following the tradition of Roman law, was a delegation of powers by the Roman people. Of the three theories the last was the least important; it was evidently directed against the pope, whose constitutive role it implicitly denied, but it was also a specifically Italian reaction against the predominance in practice of Frankish and German elements.
It is also important to distinguish between the universalist and localist conceptions of the empire, which have been the source of considerable controversy among historians. According to the former, the empire was a universal monarchy, a “commonwealth of the whole world, whose sublime unity transcended every minor distinction”; and the emperor “was entitled to the obedience of Christendom.” According to the latter, the emperor had no ambition for universal dominion; his policy was limited in the same way as that of every other ruler, and when he made more far-reaching claims his object was normally to ward off the attacks either of the pope or of the Byzantine emperor. According to this view, also, the origin of the empire is to be explained by specific local circumstances rather than by far-flung theories.
The Peace of Westphalia included a ratification of independence of both Netherlands and Switzerland. The Treaty of Ryswick included a ratification of the loss of Franche-Comte and Alsace (including Strasbourg) by the Holy Roman Empire to France.
- The Holy Roman Empire, as an "empire", did not have a territory of its own. It must be understood in the context of feudalism: a number of princes/...
- You have confused the very real changes that occurred to the borders over the 170 years from roughly 1520 to 1700 with the concept that the borders...
- In another thread: How were the territories added to (and thus the limits set in) the Holy Roman Empire I have a post discussing not where were...
Dec 20, 2023 · The Habsburgs, a royal family hailing from Austria, dominated the imperial throne from 1493 to 1711. Not only were they able to hold on to the title Holy Roman Emperor for centuries, but they also placed other family members on the thrones of other European nations such as Spain.
The Holy Roman Empire, 12th century: The Hohenstaufen-ruled Holy Roman Empire and Kingdom of Sicily. Imperial and directly held Hohenstaufen land in the empire is shown in bright yellow. This map shows the patchwork of relatively autonomous principalities that made up the Holy Roman Empire.
At its peak the Holy Roman Empire encompassed the territories of present-day Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Austria, Slovenia, Belgium, and the Netherlands as well as large parts of modern Poland, France and Italy.
Political origins. routes of barbarian invasions of Europe. Map of routes taken by Germanic peoples across Europe during the so-called barbarian invasions. (more) When one turns from the preconditions to the causes of the events of 800 and from the realm of ideas to that of political facts, one enters another world.
